Muma (1970a: 52) reported that:the type has not been located.
He further stated: "The
present placement presumes the validity and usability of leg tarsal and setal counts (see discussion under
Ammotrechona cubae [Lucas])." [NOTE: Ammotrechona
Roewer 1934 is currently recognized as a junior synoym of
Ammotrechella Roewer 1934.]
Muma (1976: 27;
1986: 21) and
Brookhart and Brookhart (2006: 324)
made limited reference to this species, which apparently is known from only
from the missing type..